• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you object to gay couples adopting?

Would you allow gay people to adopt?

  • Yes

    Votes: 60 59.4%
  • No

    Votes: 41 40.6%

  • Total voters
    101
P.S.: when someone leaves an open pit in you path, it is the course of wisdom to walk around it.
 
I use this post as an illustration of my point, thank you.

Ah morbidly subjective and atomistic, destructive of anything traditional, settled, wholesome or decent yet paradoxically levelling, extremely univeraslist and egalitarian. The core of modern liberalism.
 
Last edited:
I believe homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals, including the right to marry, the right to divorce, the right to adopt along with all legal rights and responsibilities therein.

With adoption, there is a problem in the way many anti-gay state laws are written that allows gay adoption (for constitutional reasons), but refuse to allow two people of the same sex to be listed on the adoption papers. If the relationship subsequently sours, the only parent with legal rights is the one who won the coin toss when the adoption papers were submitted. That parent can take the child totally out of the life of the other parent, even though that parent might have been the primary care-giver that the child loves dearly.

Bigotry and prejudice is what's harming these children, not gay adoptions.
 
I believe homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals, including the right to marry, the right to divorce, the right to adopt along with all legal rights and responsibilities therein.

With adoption, there is a problem in the way many anti-gay state laws are written that allows gay adoption (for constitutional reasons), but refuse to allow two people of the same sex to be listed on the adoption papers. If the relationship subsequently sours, the only parent with legal rights is the one who won the coin toss when the adoption papers were submitted. That parent can take the child totally out of the life of the other parent, even though that parent might have been the primary care-giver that the child loves dearly.

Bigotry and prejudice is what's harming these children, not gay adoptions.

Yea but the problem is these children will be brought into a world that does have bigotry and prejudice.
 
I know a number of families with several children and modest incomes who care for their kids quite well. Prioritizing has a lot to do with this. Again, I'd like to see people unwilling to make the commitment remain childless.

I grew up in a fairly large family of modest means. We found ways to thrive. The motivation to produce fully actualized adults drove my parents to find the means. It's really very simple.
It would seem then that what is of greater significance then is the parents willingness to sacrifice than anything else - which seems to resonate with this OP.

Oftencold said:
It is not my place to make public pronouncements abut which religious groups should have children except that people should be aware that procreation can be used as a weapon.
How is it used as a weapon?

Oftencold said:
What about Urbanites?
Urban vs rural
 
I have no objections whatsoever to gays adopting children or raising their own biological kids. Probably the most well-adjusted person, a good friend of mine was raised by her gay father and his boyfriend from the time she was a toddler. We should all be so lucky to have such wonderful parents as these two men were to this girl.

If the homosexual couple seeking to adopt goes through the same screening process as any straight couple and is deemed fit to raise a child there is no reason not to allow them to adopt, and most especially if the children they want to adopt are already in their home as their foster children. I don't understand why they allow kids to be fostered by gay couples, but when they want to make the situation permanent all of a sudden there's a huge problem there.
 
I have no objections whatsoever to gays adopting children or raising their own biological kids. Probably the most well-adjusted person, a good friend of mine was raised by her gay father and his boyfriend from the time she was a toddler. We should all be so lucky to have such wonderful parents as these two men were to this girl.

If the homosexual couple seeking to adopt goes through the same screening process as any straight couple and is deemed fit to raise a child there is no reason not to allow them to adopt, and most especially if the children they want to adopt are already in their home as their foster children. I don't understand why they allow kids to be fostered by gay couples, but when they want to make the situation permanent all of a sudden there's a huge problem there.

Well maybe the problem is the vetting process i know soo many people who in their 30s/40s who where adopted it seems like it was common for families to take in other children where as now people have to be vetted like criminals too look after an unwanted child.
 
Well maybe the problem is the vetting process i know soo many people who in their 30s/40s who where adopted it seems like it was common for families to take in other children where as now people have to be vetted like criminals too look after an unwanted child.

I know. It's become incredibly difficult to adopt kids in the West. A couple I know just gave up and went to India to adopt their little girl. They said it was a bit easier there, but they still had to go through a lot of interviews and background checks and all.
 
Yea but the problem is these children will be brought into a world that does have bigotry and prejudice.

Black children, amongst others, suffer bigotry and prejudice. Are you saying that blacks shouldn't have children because the world has bigotry and prejudice? Should blacks be forbidden to marry, have families?

You can see the flaw in your argument, surely.
 
How is it used as a weapon?

One ethnic or other demographic group attempting to "out breed" others and change the demographic makeup of a region. I do not refer to gays here, but it is a point to be considered in any discussion of encouraging or discouraging procreation, or in change parenting practices.


Urban vs rural
Yes, I know the dichotomy, and have been classed as either at one time or another. Each has advantages and liabilities, and I am glad to have seen life in both groups.

For instance, here in rural Alaska, food gathering often does not involve a shopping cart, but a rifle, or a boat.

On the other hand, going to see a big screen movie as a family involves a plane ticket.
 
Last edited:
Why should I berate you? I don't approve of IVF, on grounds that it produces surplus embryos. I also disapprove of your choice to bring children into what I consider to be an unhealthy environment, no matter how loving.

But you would disapprove of many of my choice no doubt no doubt, and in some cases you would be correct.
 
Black children, amongst others, suffer bigotry and prejudice. Are you saying that blacks shouldn't have children because the world has bigotry and prejudice? Should blacks be forbidden to marry, have families?

You can see the flaw in your argument, surely.

O yea its exactly the same :roll:.
 
Yes, it is! Thanks for agreeing. :)

except its not is it there is a difference between puttin preduces on a child than someone being born with it.
 
I'm certain that there are good examples. But I don't think it's a good idea in general.

Ultimately, this is a case of performing social experiments on children.

For what it's worth, I similarly oppose most single parent adoptions as well, and I've enforced that position in my own life.

Your position is inaccurate and not a social experiment. Research shows that children raised by gay parents function as well as children raised by straight parents.

There is no logical reason for this couple to be denied the adoption.
 
I also disapprove of your choice to bring children into what I consider to be an unhealthy environment, no matter how loving.

Except what your position on what you consider to be a, generally, unhealthy environment, has been proven to be false.
 
Your position is inaccurate and not a social experiment. Research shows that children raised by gay parents function as well as children raised by straight parents.

There is no logical reason for this couple to be denied the adoption.

I just dont see how this reaserch can be in anyway thorough are there any stand out studies?
 
Bigotry and prejudice is what's harming these children

Bigotry and prejudice projected by dwindling numbers.

"The arc of history is a long one, but it bends towards justice."


Martin Luther King Jr.

It's only a matter of time and equality will come. It will be as slow, if not slower, as the equality previous minorities of our country fought for.
 
I just dont see how this reaserch can be in anyway thorough are there any stand out studies?

There are many studies around this. I have posted them several times when this debate comes up. They do comparisons on the functioning level of children, both from gay and straight 2-parent homes. They measure these functioning levels based on academics, emotional stability, sexuality, socialization, and several other criteria. What the studies found was that there was, virtually, no difference between children who grew up with gay parents verses children who grew up with straight parents. They discovered that there was a difference between both of these environments and children who grew up in single parent households; children in the latter category did worse.

I'll go try to dig up the post where I, originally, cited the studies.
 
There are many studies around this. I have posted them several times when this debate comes up. They do comparisons on the functioning level of children, both from gay and straight 2-parent homes. They measure these functioning levels based on academics, emotional stability, sexuality, socialization, and several other criteria. What the studies found was that there was, virtually, no difference between children who grew up with gay parents verses children who grew up with straight parents. They discovered that there was a difference between both of these environments and children who grew up in single parent households; children in the latter category did worse.

I'll go try to dig up the post where I, originally, cited the studies.

Dont get me wrong in principle im not against gay adoption i just wanna know what the evidence shows to the effects.
 
Your position is inaccurate and not a social experiment. Research shows that children raised by gay parents function as well as children raised by straight parents.

There is no logical reason for this couple to be denied the adoption.

You're right. There is no logic or reason involved in the opposition to gay adoption.
 
You're right. There is no logic or reason involved in the opposition to gay adoption.

No offense meant but it's your type of argumentation that makes issues, like this, so polarized and divisive. What I mean is both sides are using logic and reason in their opposition or support of gay adoption.
 
Last edited:
There's a huge lack of Love in this world. Where anyone would love a child that needs it, they ought to be able to do so without interference. And where a child needs parents who love them and can show them what love is, other concerns ought to take a very distant back-seat.
 
Except what your position on what you consider to be a, generally, unhealthy environment, has been proven to be false.
It occurs to me that these "studies," cannot be terribly extensive, since the practice has only been allowed in most states for a short number of years.


Also "proof" is a term with a fairly high standard. Your probably on much safer ground if you say that studies (which you did not actually cite,) "indicate," or "support" a position.

It should also be noted that in the current political climate, studies not supporting the new orthodoxy, that is that homosexual parents are at least as good for the children as heterosexual children, are very unlikely to find wide publication or a positive reception.

This position may be illustrated by this excerpt:
In conclusion, research evidence to date has limitations in definitions,
samples, and analysis, and therefore does not support
firm statements. However, the scarce data available suggest that
there is a difference between nonheterosexual and heterosexual
parenting.
Unfortunately, ideological and social pressures may be
constraining the research in this field.
Its political weight regarding
child custody or planned lesbigay parenthood through fertility
services or adoption is so high that the position of researchers may
be influencing how studies are being designed, conducted, and
interpreted.
8 As pediatricians, we can only promote the health
care and integral development of children of gay or lesbian parents
if we are aware of the particular difficulties that they may face
when reaching adolescence, such as sexual identity conflicts or the
feeling of stigmatization. Neglecting the risks may preclude pediatricians
to help children and parents to understand and cope with
these issues.
Ana Martı´n-Ancel, MD
Department of Pediatrics and Neonatology
Fundacio´n Hospital Alcorco´n
Budapest 1
28922 Alcorco´n
Madrid, Spain

-empasis added
LINK
 
Back
Top Bottom